some of it as a matter of requirement to the local station. Then do more if they wish. My bill requires that the Corporation get some financing from the Federal Government and they can pass some of that through if they wish, but it requires also that the local station would get it directly through another technical vehicle-HEW. But I am trying to figure out here your feeling about these 15 men, or this appointive authority, because I don't know whether your concern is in dealing with the problems at the national level as opposed to the local level, or that we ought to do both.

Reverend FORE. I am strongly in favor of increasing the facilities and programing at the local and regional level. This is extremely important. I am just as concerned if not more concerned, to do this at the national levels as well.

Now as to how it is to be done. I think that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which after all is in the broadcasting area of expertise, that is, it has broadcasting experts in the Corporation on the staff and they deal with local stations-I did not mean to imply that they are in the broadcasting business like CBS, but they have the people on their staff who deal with broadcasting, research and broadcasting and so on-it seems to me, and I think this reflects the views of the committee, that these are the people who rightly ought to make the decisions as to which places need help the most, and so on, within a general floor of the 30 percentage level.

Mr. BROWN. How is your committee made up? How are they selected?

Reverend FORE. Each national organization determines who it shall. send. Some are elected, others are designated. Others are put on by virtue of their staff relationship to broadcasting or some other way. Mr. BROWN. You are elected by a vote of the whole representative group?

Reverend FORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you.

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here. I think you have been one of the best witnesses that I have heard as far as being cogent and direct. I don't apologize but you understand I just wish that more members of the committee could have heard your entire testimony, but I am sure they will read it in the record. I personally appreciate your being here. You have made a great contribution to the committee.

Reverend FORE. Thank you.

Mr. MACDONALD. We thank you for being here.

With that we will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 7:05 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, February 3, 1972.)

FINANCING FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING-1972

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1972

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER,
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald (chairman) presiding.

Mr. MACDONALD. The hearing will come to order.

We are continuing hearings on H.R. 11807 and H.R. 7443 to provide for improved financing for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and for other purposes.

I would like to welcome all of you to our hearings, and our witnesses. We are pleased to have as our first witness today, Senator Robert P. Griffin of the State of Michigan.

Welcome, Senator Griffin, it is good of you to come over to this side of the Congress to express your views.

Please be seated. We shall be pleased to hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement in connection with these hearings on public broadcasting legislation. The purpose of my statement is to urge the subcommittee to adopt an amendment to the Public Broadcasting Act which would insure greater objectivity and balance in the public affairs programing of noncommercial broadcasting.

Briefly, the amendment would require public broadcast stations which receive assistance under title II of the Public Broadcasting Act to keep records, including audio recordings, for a reasonable length of time of public affairs programs which they broadcast. The Federal Communications Commission would be charged with the responsibility of determining how long the records and recordings should be kept and, in turn, would make these materials available at cost to the public.

The amendment I am suggesting was incorporated in the Senate version of the 1970 public broadcasting authorization bill. Although the provision was deleted in conference, the managers on the part of the House stated in the conference report that the proposal "should be

(241)

the subject of hearings in the next session of Congress." A copy of the amendment and a description of the amendment contained in the Senate Commerce Committee report are attached. I would appreciate having these items included in the hearing record following my

statement.

In creating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting the Congress found that

(1) the development of noncommercial broadcasting depended on "freedom, imagination, and initiative on both the local and national levels":

(2) public broadcast programing should be "responsive to the interest of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States"; and

(3) public broadcasting should be made "available to all citizens of the United States."

One can certainly conclude that there is more than enough freedom, imagination, and initiative in public broadcasting at the national level. On the other hand, there is very little opportunity for such freedom, imagination, or initiative at the local level.

It might also be said that public broadcasting service is being made available to all the citizens of the United States. The more important question, however, is whether the present programing fare is responsive to all the people of the United States. There is little doubt in my mind that the answer to this question is in the negative.

In this connection, it is somewhat interesting to note the recent comment made by Arthur Singer, one of the principal organizers of the Carnegie study on educational television. Mr. Singer believes the Carnegie Commission Report called for pluralism and localism in the public broadcasting system. He concludes, however, that "the present system is not pluralistic. It is dominated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting Service and the Ford Foundation. What goes on the air on the system *** is what these institutions approve." I certainly share Mr. Singer's sentiments.

The influence of these three entities over public broadcasting is clearly demonstrated by the fact that from 1968 to 1970 the number of broadcast hours carrying nationally produced programs rose 43 percent while there was a 13-percent decrease in local production.

One way to correct this imbalance is to require that a substantial share of Federal funding be channeled directly to local stations. You already have proposals before you which would accomplish that objective.

Another way to make public broadcasting more objective and more responsive to local needs is to provide access and inspection of the programing offered by the system. My amendment would accomplish this objective.

There are two provisions in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 which, in effect, spell out a Fairness Doctrine for noncommercial broadcasting.

In the provision establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and what is now section 396 (g) (1) (A) of the Communications Act of 1934. it states that in the development of high quality programing for noncommercial educational broadcasting there must be "strict

adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."

What is now Section 399 of the Communications Act of 1934, and the section which my amendment would amend, provides that:

No commercial educational broadcasting station may engage in editorializing or may support or oppose any candidate for political office.

Serious question exists, however, as to the effectiveness of these provisions. At present, there is no procedure whereby broadcasts of public interest can be monitored to insure that both the spirit and the letter of the law are carried out.

It is inconceivable to me how these provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act can ever have any meaning when the public is denied the right to examine what is broadcast over government regulated air waves by broadcasters who are subsidized with public funds. If any person can go to a public library and inspect newspaper files dating back several decades, is it too much to expect public broadcasters to retain copies of their program tapes for a much shorter period of time?

One only has to recall the numerous times that a newspaper is publicly brought to task for apparent inconsistencies in editorial news reporting to realize the effectiveness of keeping newspaper statements and news reporting to realize in editorial statements and copies on file. In the case of newspapers we have a nonregulated industry. In the case of public broadcasting, we not only have government regulation, but also government subsidy.

Of course, I am aware of the fact that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has recently reiterated its intent to be objective and fair in public affairs programing. I am also aware that the Corporation can require a station to provide copies of all programs to the Corporation which are underwritten by grants from the latter.

But this procedure needs to be expanded so that all the public can have a reasonable opportunity to review controversial programs. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons why there is so much vague criticism of network news and public affairs presentations is that there is no effective way to document such criticism.

I realize that some broadcasters may object to the time and cost of keeping copies of the audio tape of all programs of public importance. However, I believe the amendment is structured in a way which will minimize the burden on the local broadcaster.

First, the amendment would provide that records and audio recordings be kept only for a reasonable period of time as determined by the FCC. Furthermore, the 1970 Report of the Senate Commerce Committee suggested a time of at least 3 months for the recordings to be kept. In some instances a longer time might be in order, such as for a continuing series of programs on a particular subject.

Second, recording of programs such as "Sesame Street" would not have to be kept. Of course, differences may arise as to what constitutes a program involving an issue of public importance. While there will be gray areas, it would be my hope that the FCC in issuing regulations would err on the side of requiring too much.

Third, any member of the public requesting an audio recording would be required to pay for the cost of reproducing the tape.

Finally, I might add that if, in fact, the cost to the broadcaster becomes too great I, for one, would support additional Federal funding for this purpose.

In closing let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is designed to lessen the likelihood of political control over public broadcasting. This point was stressed in the Report of the Senate Commerce Committee on the 1970 authorization bill and I believe it bears repeating here:

In order to asure that the freedom of the Corporation and the stations from outside influence remains unassailed, your Committee believes that the noncommercial stations should keep adequate records including audio recordings of programs they broadcast that involve public affairs. In that way, if any one seriously questions a station's impartiality or fairness, the record is there and any doubts may be quickly resolved.

Your committee also wishes to make it understood that this amendment is in no way intended to infringe on the autonomy of local stations or interfere with program production or content. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge your subcommittee to adopt the amendment I have proposed.

(The attachments referred to follow :)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Section 399 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting "(a)" after "Sec. 399." and by inserting at the end thereof a new subsection as follows: "(b) In order to assure compliance with this section and with other provisions of this Act requiring fair treatment of matters in the public interest, the Commission shall prescribe such regulations as may be appropriate to require that broadcast stations which receive assistance under this title (1) keep records, including audio recordings, for a reasonable period of time of each program broadcast which involves an issue of public importance, and (2) furnish such records to the Commission at its request. The Commission shall make such records available to the public at the requesting party's cost under such circumstances and conditions as may be reasonable and appropriate."

The following is an excerpt from the report of the Senate Commerce Committee on the "Public Broadcasting Financing Act of 1970" (Senate Report 91-869):

AMENDMENT

When the Public Broadcast Act was being considered, fears were expressed that the government might influence public broadcasting. As a consequence, the intention that the Corporation and the individual stations be completely free of any outside influence, governmental or otherwise, was expressed in the strongest terms possible by the Congress. The Corporation and the stations are and should be free.

In order to assure that this freedom remains unassailed, your Committee believes that the noncommercial stations should keep adequate records including audio recordings of programs they broadcast that involve public affairs. In that way, if any one seriously questions a station's impartiality or fairness, the record is there and any doubts may be quickly resolved.

Your committee notes that noncommercial stations are presently required by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to provide a copy of any program to the Corporation which has been specifically underwritten by a grant from the Corporation.